Search (156 results, page 1 of 8)

0.0773156 = product of:
  0.1546312 = sum of:
    0.111572385 = weight(_text_:assisted in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111572385 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.37317806 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 46) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=46,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 46, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=46)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article seeks to address the following questions: Why do certain people, who are fully information literate with printed materials, become hesitant and even reluctant when it comes to finding something on the Internet? And why do we, information professionals, find it difficult to support them adequately? Mature users of digital information are often skeptical about the value of the Internet as a source for professional information. Over the years much has been achieved, but many prophecies of the experts on digitalization from the early hours still have not yet been fulfilled. Mature users do possess all skills needed to be digital-information literate, but they need to be assisted in specific areas where those skills are insufficient. They tend to blame themselves even if shortcomings in accessibility of digital sources and computer errors obstruct their search. Operating hardware requires a dexterity that can only be acquired by experience. Instruction should be hands-on; demonstration is far less effective. Special attention should be given to reading and interpreting navigation information on the screen and to the search strategies the Internet requires. Use of imagination and trial-and-error methods are to be recommended in this respect.

0.039050333 = product of:
  0.15620133 = sum of:
    0.15620133 = weight(_text_:assisted in 6955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15620133 = score(doc=6955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.52244925 = fieldWeight in 6955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6955)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the changes in the role of classification and the opportunities presented for classification in the twenty-first century, especially in respect to the development of information technology. The issues arose as part of the EC funded MIRACLE project that represents the foundation for a virtual music library to serve visually impaired people. The MIRACLE partners chose the UDC as the common classification for the converging music catalogues. This paper investigates the nature of adaptation required by each participating library and the way in which the classification is used as a searching tool. Further developments in the use of IT-assisted classification are proposed

0.034447044 = product of:
  0.13778818 = sum of:
    0.13778818 = product of:
      0.27557635 = sum of:
        0.27557635 = weight(_text_:instruction in 6333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.27557635 = score(doc=6333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            1.0491407 = fieldWeight in 6333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.033471715 = product of:
  0.13388686 = sum of:
    0.13388686 = weight(_text_:assisted in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13388686 = score(doc=5553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.44781366 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Webtran tools for authoring and translating domain specific texts can make the multilingual text production in a company more efficient and less expensive. Tile tools have been in production use since spring 2000 for checking and translating product article texts of a specific domain, namely an in-company language in sales catalogues of a mail-order company. Webtran tools have been developed by VTT Information Technology. Use experiences have shown that an automatic translation process is faster than phrase-lexicon assisted manual translation, if an in-company language model is created to control and support the language used within the company

0.030926237 = product of:
  0.061852474 = sum of:
    0.04462895 = weight(_text_:assisted in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04462895 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.14927122 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
    0.017223522 = product of:
      0.034447044 = sum of:
        0.034447044 = weight(_text_:instruction in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034447044 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.13114259 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.5, S.467-468 (W. Koehler): "Virtual Inequality is an important contribution to the digital divide debate. That debate takes two basic forms. One centers an the divide between the "information rich" developed countries and the "information poor" developing countries. The second is concerned with the rift between information "haves" and "have-nots" within countries. This book addresses the latter domain and is concerned with the digital divide in the United States. This book is the product of a cross-disciplinary collaboration. Mossberger and Tolbert are both members of the Kent State University political science department while Stansbury is an the Library and Information Science faculty. The book is extremely well documented. Perhaps the chapter an the democracy divide and e-government is the best done, reflecting the political science bent of two of the authors. E-government is very well covered. Unfortunately, e-commerce and e-education go virtually unmentioned. If e-government is important to defining the digital divide, then certainly e-commerce and e-education are as well. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury argue that the digital divide should be described as four different divides: the access divide, the skills divide, the economic opportunity divide, and the democratic divide. Each of these divides is developed in its own chapter. Each chapter draws well an the existing literature. The book is valuable if for no other reason than that it provides an excellent critique of the current state of the understanding of the digital divide in the United States. It is particularly good in its contrast of the approaches taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Perhaps this is a function of the multidisciplinary strength of the book's authorship, for indeed it shows here. The access divide is defined along "connectivity" lines: who has access to digital technologies. The authors tonfirm the conventional wisdom that age and education are important predictors of in-home access, but they also argue that rate and ethnicity are also factors (pp. 32-33): Asian Americans have greatest access followed by whites, Latinos, and African Americans in that order. Most access the Internet from home or work, followed by friends' computers, libraries, and other access points. The skills divide is defined as technical competence and information literacy (p. 38). Variation was found along technical competence for age, education, affluence, rate, and ethnicity, but not gender (p. 47). The authors conclude that for the most part the skills divide mirrors the access divide (p. 55). While they found no gender difference, they did find a gender preference for skills acquisition: males prefer a more impersonal delivery ("online help and tutorials") while females prefer more personal instruction (p. 56).
The economic opportunity divide is predicated an the hypothesis that there has, indeed, been a major shift in opportunities driven by changes in the information environment. The authors document this paradigm shift well with arguments from the political and economic right and left. This chapter might be described as an "attitudinal" chapter. The authors are concerned here with the perceptions of their respondents of their information skills and skill levels with their economic outlook and opportunities. Technological skills and economic opportunities are correlated, one finds, in the minds of all across all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, and income levels. African Americans in particular are ". . attuned to the use of technology for economic opportunity" (p. 80). The fourth divide is the democratic divide. The Internet may increase political participation, the authors posit, but only among groups predisposed to participate and perhaps among those with the skills necessary to take advantage of the electronic environment (p. 86). Certainly the Web has played an important role in disseminating and distributing political messages and in some cases in political fund raising. But by the analysis here, we must conclude that the message does not reach everyone equally. Thus, the Internet may widen the political participation gap rather than narrow it. The book has one major, perhaps fatal, flaw: its methodology and statistical application. The book draws upon a survey performed for the authors in June and July 2001 by the Kent State University's Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) lab (pp. 7-9). CATI employed a survey protocol provided to the reader as Appendix 2. An examination of the questionnaire reveals that all questions yield either nominal or ordinal responses, including the income variable (pp. 9-10). Nevertheless, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury performed a series of multiple regression analyses (reported in a series of tables in Appendix 1) utilizing these data. Regression analysis requires interval/ratio data in order to be valid although nominal and ordinal data can be incorporated by building dichotomous dummy variables. Perhaps Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury utilized dummy variables; but 1 do not find that discussed. Moreover, 1 would question a multiple regression made up completely of dichotomous dummy variables. I come away from Virtual Inequality with mixed feelings. It is useful to think of the digital divide as more than one phenomenon. The four divides that Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury offeraccess, skills, economic opportunity, and democratic-are useful as a point of departure and debate. No doubt, other divides will be identified and documented. This book will lead the way. Second, without question, Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury provide us with an extremely well-documented, -written, and -argued work. Third, the authors are to be commended for the multidisciplinarity of their work. Would that we could see more like it. My reservations about their methodological approach, however, hang over this review like a shroud."

0.027893096 = product of:
  0.111572385 = sum of:
    0.111572385 = weight(_text_:assisted in 200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111572385 = score(doc=200,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.37317806 = fieldWeight in 200, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=200)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article compares search effectiveness when using query-based Internet search (via the Google search engine), directory-based search (via Yahoo), and phrase-based query reformulation-assisted search (via the Hyperindex browser) by means of a controlled, user-based experimental study. The focus was to evaluate aspects of the search process. Cognitive load was measured using a secondary digit-monitoring task to quantify the effort of the user in various search states; independent relevance judgements were employed to gauge the quality of the documents accessed during the search process and time was monitored as a function of search state. Results indicated directory-based search does not offer increased relevance over the query-based search (with or without query formulation assistance), and also takes longer. Query reformulation does significantly improve the relevance of the documents through which the user must trawl, particularly when the formulation of query terms is more difficult. However, the improvement in document relevance comes at the cost of increased search time, although this difference is quite small when the search is self-terminated. In addition, the advantage of the query reformulation seems to occur as a consequence of providing more discriminating terms rather than by increasing the length of queries

0.02655461 = product of:
  0.05310922 = sum of:
    0.04462895 = weight(_text_:assisted in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04462895 = score(doc=91,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.29897895 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04425879 = queryNorm
        0.14927122 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.7552447 = idf(docFreq=139, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
    0.008480268 = product of:
      0.016960535 = sum of:
        0.016960535 = weight(_text_:22 in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016960535 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.109432176 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Classification

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

DDC

303.48/33 22 (LoC)

Footnote

The volume is organized into 13 sections, each of which contains between two and eight conference papers. As with most conferences, the papers do not cover the issues in each section with equal weight or depth but the editors have grouped papers into reasonable patterns. Section 1 covers "understanding online behavior" with eight papers on problems such as e-learning attitudes, the neuropsychology of HCI, Japanese blogger motivation, and the dividing line between computer addiction and high engagement. Sections 2 (personality and computer attitudes), 3 (cyber interactions), and 4 (new interaction methods) each contain only two papers on topics such as helmet-mounted displays, online energy audits, and the use of ICT in family life. Sections 6, 7, and 8 focus on gender issues with papers on career development, the computer literacy of Malaysian women, mentoring, gaming, and faculty job satisfaction. Sections 9 and 10 move to a broader examination of cyber society and its diversity concerns with papers on cultural identity, virtual architecture, economic growth's impact on culture, and Iranian development impediments. Section 11's two articles on advertising might well have been merged with those of section 13's ebusiness. Section 12 addressed education with papers on topics such as computer-assisted homework, assessment, and Web-based learning. It would have been useful to introduce each section with a brief definition of the theme, summaries of the major contributions of the authors, and analyses of the gaps that might be addressed in future conferences. Despite the aforementioned concerns, this volume does provide a uniquely rich array of technological analyses embedded in social context. An examination of recent works in related areas finds nothing that is this complex culturally or that has such diversity of disciplines. Cultural Production in a Digital Age (Klinenberg, 2005), Perspectives and Policies on ICT in Society (Berleur & Avgerou, 2005), and Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Information Technology (Brennan & Johnson, 2004) address various aspects of the society/Internet intersection but this volume is unique in its coverage of psychology, gender, and culture issues in cyberspace. The lip service often given to global concerns and the value of interdisciplinary analysis of intransigent social problems seldom develop into a genuine willingness to listen to unfamiliar research paradigms. Academic silos and cultural islands need conferences like this one-willing to take on the risk of examining the large questions in an intellectually open space. Editorial and methodological concerns notwithstanding, this volume merits review and, where appropriate, careful consideration across disciplines."

0.015223586 = product of:
  0.060894344 = sum of:
    0.060894344 = product of:
      0.12178869 = sum of:
        0.12178869 = weight(_text_:instruction in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12178869 = score(doc=2348,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46365905 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to understand how users determine credibility in the internet environment from a conceptual level and the implications of these new methods of credibility determination on internet tools (primarily software) and services. Design/methodology/approach - The author first examines the underlying reasons for increased dependence on the internet for information, using electronic commerce as a starting point. The central concept of "information self-sufficiency" is introduced and then examined through the lens of the internet and conversation theory. Findings - The author finds that users are shifting from more traditional "authority" methods of credibility determination, where users cede determinations to trusted third parties, to a "reliability" approach where users seek commonalities and coherence among multiple information sources. This has led to an increased pressure for participation and openness at all levels of the internet. Research limitations/implications - Studies on users and credibility must better account for often invisible technical factors. Practical implications - Libraries must take into account a greater need for participation and technical fluency when dealing with patrons, particularly in information literacy programs and instruction. Originality/value - This paper presents a large-scale conceptual approach to credibility on the internet. It seeks to inform current approaches to the subject nested in communications and instruction with the unique technical environment of the internet.

0.015223586 = product of:
  0.060894344 = sum of:
    0.060894344 = product of:
      0.12178869 = sum of:
        0.12178869 = weight(_text_:instruction in 2385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12178869 = score(doc=2385,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46365905 = fieldWeight in 2385, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study explored undergraduate students' mental models of the Web as an information retrieval system. Mental models play an important role in people's interaction with information systems. Better understanding of people's mental models could inspire better interface design and user instruction. Multiple data-collection methods, including questionnaire, semistructured interview, drawing, and participant observation, were used to elicit students' mental models of the Web from different perspectives, though only data from interviews and drawing descriptions are reported in this article. Content analysis of the transcripts showed that students had utilitarian rather than structural mental models of the Web. The majority of participants saw the Web as a huge information resource where everything can be found rather than an infrastructure consisting of hardware and computer applications. Students had different mental models of how information is organized on the Web, and the models varied in correctness and complexity. Students' mental models of search on the Web were illustrated from three points of view: avenues of getting information, understanding of search engines' working mechanisms, and search tactics. The research results suggest that there are mainly three sources contributing to the construction of mental models: personal observation, communication with others, and class instruction. In addition to structural and functional aspects, mental models have an emotional dimension.

0.01199291 = product of:
  0.04797164 = sum of:
    0.04797164 = product of:
      0.09594328 = sum of:
        0.09594328 = weight(_text_:22 in 5649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09594328 = score(doc=5649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

20. 4.2002 17:30:22

0.01199291 = product of:
  0.04797164 = sum of:
    0.04797164 = product of:
      0.09594328 = sum of:
        0.09594328 = weight(_text_:22 in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09594328 = score(doc=4686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27.11.2005 18:04:22

0.010764702 = product of:
  0.04305881 = sum of:
    0.04305881 = product of:
      0.08611762 = sum of:
        0.08611762 = weight(_text_:instruction in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08611762 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.32785648 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - In a 31-month period, 1,184 questions addressed to the Internet Public Library's (IPL) reference service remained unanswered on the grounds that they were "out of scope". This paper aims to analyze the questions as artifacts of users' expectations to better chart the distinction between user and librarian views of reference service. Design/methodology/approach - Each question is examined to identify two user expectations, i.e. what kinds of information librarians could provide and what kinds of needs librarians could help meet. Emergent coding with a code-recode rate of 97 per cent identifies 23 types of expected librarian assistance and 28 characteristics of expected applications of that assistance. Findings - Users expect IPL librarians to provide personal advice, analysis, facts, procedures, instruction, technology guidance and evaluation. IPL librarians are expected to help users in making decisions, solving problems, completing processes and developing understanding. Research limitations/implications - Limitations include the use of a single coder and the use of single institution's data set. Mapping these user expectations suggests a need for librarians to consider further development of reference service in terms of its judgment, form, and involvement parameters. Practical implications - Reference service policies and training should be examined to enhance librarians' abilities to consider judgment, form, and involvement parameters primarily from the user's perspective. Originality/value - This paper analyzes that which is rarely seen, i.e. e-mail reference questions which are considered beyond the scope of service. Additionally, the IPL question pool provides a broader range of user mental models than would be found in any geographically bound institution.

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 6140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=6140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=4364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:29:08

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 5002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=5002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 26(2000), no.6, Aug/Sept, S.22-25

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2001 11:57:52

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 6872) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=6872,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6872, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6872)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

14. 8.2002 11:47:22

0.010493796 = product of:
  0.041975185 = sum of:
    0.041975185 = product of:
      0.08395037 = sum of:
        0.08395037 = weight(_text_:22 in 6879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08395037 = score(doc=6879,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6879, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6879)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Online Mitteilungen. 2001, Nr.70, S.22-36 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 54(2001) H.2/3]

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

11. 8.2002 15:05:22

0.008994682 = product of:
  0.035978727 = sum of:
    0.035978727 = product of:
      0.071957454 = sum of:
        0.071957454 = weight(_text_:22 in 2257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071957454 = score(doc=2257,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2257, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2257)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22